Further draft recommendations for the new electoral arrangements of Council: East , Southfields, Wandle, Wandsworth Town and West Hill wards

Electoral review

June 2020 Translations and other formats:

To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for at:

Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

Licensing:

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2020

A note on our mapping:

The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical. Contents

Analysis and further draft recommendations in the areas of East Putney, Southfields, Wandle, Wandsworth Town and West Hill 1 East Putney, Southfields, Wandle, Wandsworth Town and West Hill 3 Have your say 9 Equalities 11 Appendices 13 Appendix A 13 Further draft recommendations for Wandsworth 13 Appendix B 14 Submissions received 14

Analysis and further draft recommendations in the areas of East Putney, Southfields, Wandle, Wandsworth Town and West Hill

1 Following consultation on our draft recommendations for Wandsworth Council, the Commission has decided to hold a further period of consultation in the areas of East Putney, Southfields, Wandle, Wandsworth Town and West Hill, prior to publication of its final recommendations. The Commission believes it has received sufficient evidence relating to the rest of the borough to finalise its recommendations, so this consultation is focused on our proposed East Putney, Southfields, Wandle, Wandsworth Town and West Hill wards.

2 During consultation on the draft recommendations, that were published on 29 October 2019, we received 393 representations, most of which commented on our proposals for wards in the central area of Wandsworth, which covers our draft recommendations for East Putney, Southfields, Wandle Valley, Wandsworth Town & St Ann’s and West Hill wards. A significant majority of the submissions expressed opposition to our proposals for most of this area, whilst our proposals for Southfields arguably had some support. Many respondents provided a great deal of evidence describing their community to substantiate their opposition to our proposals. In light of this we have also had to re-examine proposals for Southfields.

3 In addition to this, it was brought to our attention towards the end of the consultation on our draft recommendations that the electoral equality figures for two of our proposed wards were incorrect. On rechecking, we noted that the electoral variances quoted in our report for Wandle Valley and West Hill were incorrect due to a counting error. Consequently, this resulted in the true electoral variances being -15% for Wandle Valley ward and 15% for West Hill ward by 2025. In our view, this constitutes poor electoral equality.

4 Accordingly, we have been persuaded to amend our proposals and publish further draft recommendations for East Putney, Southfields, Wandle, Wandsworth Town and West Hill wards. We are now inviting further views in these areas.

5 We welcome all comments on these proposals, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries and the names of our proposed wards. This stage of consultation begins on 16 June 2020 and closes on 27 July 2020. Please see page 9 for more information on how to send us your response.

6 The tables and maps on pages 3–8 detail our further draft recommendations for the five wards. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory criteria of:

1 • Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities. • Providing for effective and convenient local government.

2 East Putney, Southfields, Wandle, Wandsworth Town and West Hill

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors East Putney 3 -1% Southfields 2 7% Wandle 2 0% Wandsworth Town 3 10% West Hill 3 -5%

East Putney 7 We are consulting on this area because several respondents opposed our draft recommendations and provided evidence to justify a different warding pattern. We received 26 submissions directly relating to our draft recommendations for East Putney, only five of which were supportive of our proposals for this ward. One submission made comments in relation to parliamentary constituency boundaries which is outside the scope of this review. In general, a number of respondents argued that our proposals did not truly represent the area of East Putney. Some argued that the true boundary of East Putney is formed by Putney Hill to the west, Upper Richmond Road or the railway line to the north, and tapering south to a triangular point where Putney Hill and West Hill meet at the junction with the A3.

3 Many stated that our West Putney ward extended too far east and that the boundary should be Putney Hill. They reasoned that the draft recommendations failed to acknowledge the importance of East Putney underground station as a focal point for the area.

8 Many of the submissions also stated that our draft recommendations for East Putney extended too far east to include areas of Wandsworth Town. One of the submissions stated that a consequence of extending the ward boundary so far east would be that residents and businesses in the area would need to converse with two sets of councillors in order to resolve issues. In light of this, they argued that the proposal would likely disrupt the delivery of effective and effective convenient local government. Councillor O’Broin stated that the Oakhill grid has the characteristics of both Putney and Wandsworth, with the residents naturally orientating towards Putney, so it would be possible to include them within East Putney. Councillor O’Brion also stated that further east of this, the residents have stronger ties with Wandsworth town, as they use the facilities there instead. This would therefore suggest that the furthest east the ward could extend is Road, which many submissions agreed was a more suitable eastern boundary.

9 We also considered proposals from the Liberal Democrat Group and a resident who suggested that Putney Hill act as a boundary to west, with the ward extending down triangularly and using the A3 as a boundary to the south and the railway line to the north. We consider the proposed boundaries to be clear and identifiable and are in line with the community evidence received. Therefore, we recommend a change to the East Putney/West Putney ward boundary so that it runs along Putney Hill. We also recommend that the eastern boundary be amended to Putney Bridge Road, with the northern boundary following the railway line.

10 Whilst there appeared to be consensus regarding the north of the ward, there appeared to be some disagreement regarding how far south this ward should extend. A significant number of submissions received in opposition to our proposals for West Hill stated that the area south of the A3 should either be placed in our proposed Wandle Valley or East Putney ward, with many arguing that it should not be placed in West Hill due to the different nature of the housing. Proposals to place this housing in our proposed Wandle Valley ward appeared to be largely presented as a possible solution to the poor electoral equality for that ward. Whilst we considered this option, we also noted that it was unlikely to be possible due to the changes we are proposing in the wider area. Therefore, we did not consider it possible to accommodate this proposal as part of our recommendations.

11 We considered the alternative proposals put forward by the Liberal Democrat Group which placed a large proportion of the housing south of the A3 in its proposed West Hill ward. We balanced this against the significant volume of submissions which argued that this area should not be placed in West Hill due to a lack of shared

4 community identities and interests. Furthermore, it would not be possible to accommodate this boundary with our proposals for West Hill and still produce good electoral equality, nor did we consider the boundary to be clear or identifiable. Therefore, we will not be recommending this boundary in the south of the ward.

12 We received proposals from a resident and the Conservative Group which were similar in nature. However, the resident used the A218 as a ward boundary whilst the Conservative Group used the western edge of King George’s Park and Brathway Road. We considered both to constitute strong boundaries. However, we considered that the boundary proposed by the Conservative Group would provide for better electoral equality. We also noted that the resident proposed an extension to the ward beyond Broomhill Road, which seemed contrary to the other community evidence we received. On this basis, we recommend that the southern boundary of our proposed East Putney ward be amended. We propose that the ward be extended to include the housing south of the A3. We also propose that it extends as far as West Hill between the railway line to the west, to Granville and Brathway Roads in the south, and to Buckhold Road in the east. We consider this boundary to be clear and identifiable and supported by the community evidence received. This would ensure that East Putney has good electoral equality as a three-councillor ward.

Southfields and West Hill 13 We received a significant number of objections to our proposed West Hill ward, which included five petitions from local residents opposing the boundary between West Hill and Southfields wards. The opposition was largely in relation to our northern extension of the ward, and many expressed objections to our proposed boundary along Albert Drive to the south.

14 We took note of the submissions which argued that our proposed boundary between Southfields and West Hill wards would have a detrimental impact on providing effective and convenient local government for the area. This is because the area south of this includes the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club where the Wimbledon Championships are held. While not in the borough, it has a large impact on this area with numerous community groups being set up and close cross-borough working relationships. It was argued that the boundary should be amended so the ward was directly adjacent to the area of Merton borough that contains the tennis club. Furthermore, numerous respondents argued that our proposed West Hill ward extended too far in a north-easterly direction and highlighted that the extension would result in poor electoral equality.

15 Many of the submissions suggested that the current warding arrangements for West Hill were still appropriate and reflected the community. They also contended that the present warding arrangements followed clear and identifiable boundaries, using Side to the east, the A3 to the north and the railway line to the west. The partial scheme provided by the resident did suggest a slight alteration

5 along the western boundary. The resident proposed using Wimbledon Park Road as a boundary, between the railway line and Granville Road, as it was argued that this was a clear and identifiable feature on which to base ward boundaries. We considered this option, noting that it would still produce good electoral equality for West Hill ward. However, we noted that we did not receive any evidence from others to suggest this proposed amendment had wider support. In addition, given our proposals for Southfields ward which are described below, it would result in a relatively high electoral variance.

16 On the basis of the evidence received, we have decided to amend our previous recommendations and propose retaining the current electoral arrangements for West Hill ward.

17 A total of 17 submissions were received in support of our proposed Southfields ward. These included submissions from the Conservative Group, Fleur Anderson MP (Putney) and Councillors Carpenter, Caddy, Humphries and Walsh. The respondents broadly expressed their support for the proposals on the basis that they reflected the Southfields Grid. The Liberal Democrat Group also appeared to support the reconfiguration of Southfields ward but suggested different boundaries in its proposals. While we note the broad support for our draft recommendations in this area, we have concluded that it is not possible to keep them unchanged. This is due to the substantial and well-evidenced community proposals which suggested that our proposed boundary to the south, along Albert Drive, did not reflect the pattern of local communities.

18 Other submissions received in relation to our proposed Southfields ward stated a preference for the ward to largely remain the same. The Southfields Business Forum stated that they were happy with the current warding arrangements, stating a preference for councillors from two ward sets to be responsible for different groups of shops. They reasoned that the shops in West Hill face different issues to those in the rest of the area and mentioned the impact of the Wimbledon Championships. It is worth noting that the current warding arrangements cannot be maintained due to poor electoral equality. Other submissions in opposition to our proposals argued that Southfields has a strong village feel, and that our proposed Wandle Valley ward cut through a large area defined as being Southfields.

19 Some submissions, including those from Councillor Grimston and a local resident, suggested using the eastern edge of King George’s Park as a ward boundary. They asserted that this would provide a clear and identifiable eastern boundary whilst maintaining the areas that identify as Southfields in the ward. This included the Southfields Academy which, in our draft recommendations, was moved to an adjacent ward. In consideration of this evidence, our new proposal for Southfields ward leaves the eastern and western boundaries similar to the current warding arrangements, using King George’s Park and the railway line as the ward

6 boundary. The area to the north has been divided between our proposed East Putney and Wandsworth Town wards, as detailed elsewhere in this report.

Wandle and Wandsworth Town 20 A clear theme which arose in many submissions we received was that our draft recommendations split Wandsworth Town into numerous surrounding wards, such as East Putney and Wandle Valley. Some respondents argued that the ward should be focused on the Southside Shopping Centre. Additionally, many submissions stated that our draft recommendations failed to address an alleged anomaly created by the previous boundary review, where residents in the western area of were erroneously placed in this ward, despite not being ‘ facing’. Other submissions contended that our proposed Wandsworth Town & St Ann’s ward stretched too far south, arguing that those to the south should not be placed in a ward with Wandsworth Town residents as their community orientation is towards Tooting. The Labour Group contended that this could be corrected by moving those in Cargill Road and Algarve Road into our proposed Wandle Valley ward. We considered this amendment but noted that more changes were needed, in light of all the community evidence received.

21 We sought to ensure that the Wandsworth Town community is represented in a cohesive ward. As mentioned above, numerous submissions received suggested that our draft recommendations worsened an anomaly created by the last boundary review. The submissions stated that the current warding arrangements for Wandsworth Common extended too far west, taking in an area which is Wandsworth Town/ facing. One of the submissions specifically stated that the polling districts FFD and WCC were Wandsworth Town facing, whilst others contended that these were Battersea-facing areas, but nonetheless that they formed a community. One submission even suggested creating a single-member ward for this area, naming it St John’s. Similarly, the Liberal Democrat Group categorised a large part of this area together, naming it East Hill, although its proposed boundary extended further east.

22 Therefore, in light of the evidence received, we have had to make a judgement as to where Wandsworth Town ends. The Liberal Democrat Group stated that there was difficulty in choosing where to draw the boundary between Wandsworth Town and the ward below it. We noted a similar difficulty when trying to decide where to place this boundary. We considered the Group’s proposal but noted that it would produce poor electoral equality when considered in the context of our wider proposals for this area. The resident proposed a Wandsworth Town ward which used North Side Wandsworth Common and East Hill as its southern boundary. The eastern end of the proposed ward took in most of the commercial premises, leaving any residential properties in the adjacent ward to the south. Whilst we noted that this proposal used clear and identifiable boundaries, we did not consider the proposal to be line with other community evidence received, which suggested that the east of

7 their proposed ward would split up an established community. On this basis, we will not be recommending these boundaries as part of our further draft recommendations.

23 We considered the boundaries proposed by the Conservative Group to be clear and identifiable, and in line with the community evidence received. However, given our proposals for adjoining areas, this would result in poor electoral equality. This is because the Group used our previous recommendations for Southfields ward, which we have subsequently chosen to amend in light of other community evidence. We therefore sought to identify alternative ward boundaries for this area and note that Allfarthing Lane acts as a clear boundary. Whilst we note that the Conservative Group suggested this lane should be included wholly in one ward, we did not consider sufficient evidence had been provided to support this. Therefore, our proposed boundaries for Wandsworth Town ward follow the railway line to the east and north, the A3209, Broomhill and Buckhold Roads to the west, and Mapleton Road and Allfarthing Lane to the south.

24 We have chosen to name this ward Wandsworth Town, as suggested by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups. Other ward names were suggested, but these were based on different configurations for this area. We consider Wandsworth Town a fitting name for the ward, as the ward no longer contains St Ann’s Hill in its entirety. Furthermore, as Wandsworth Town is the focus on the ward, this name is a coherent description of the area.

25 We propose a revised Wandle Valley ward with boundaries broadly formed by Allfarthing Lane in the north, the railway line to the immediate south-east of the B234, and King George’s Park and the River Wandle in the west. We consider that this proposal is in line with the community evidence received which suggested that the area east of Garratt Lane should be included in a ward with Road. We also take note of submissions which argued that the southern area of our proposed Wandsworth Town & St Ann’s ward had nothing in common with those near Wandsworth Town. We have decided to name this ward Wandle, but we note there was a lack of consensus on an appropriate ward name. Other suggested names for this area have included North Earlsfield or Earlsfield North. We would particularly welcome views on our proposed ward names during the current consultation.

26 Accordingly, we have recommended revised Wandle and Wandsworth Town wards in consideration of the evidence received. We consider these wards to better reflect local community identities than our previous recommendations but would be interested to hear a wide range of local views on these proposals.

8 Have your say

27 The Commission has an open mind about its further draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

28 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Wandsworth, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

29 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

30 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to: Review Officer (Wandsworth) LGBCE c/o Cleardata Innovation House Coniston Court Riverside Business Park Blyth NE24 4RP

31 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Wandsworth Council which delivers: • Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters. • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities. • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively.

32 A good pattern of wards should: • Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters. • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links. • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.

9

33 Electoral equality: • Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Wandsworth?

34 Community identity: • Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

35 Effective local government: • Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

36 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices in Westminster (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

37 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

38 In the light of representations received, we will review our further draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the further draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

39 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Wandsworth Council in 2022.

10

Equalities

40 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

11

12 Appendices

Appendix A Further draft recommendations for Wandsworth Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor % councillor average % 1 East Putney 3 12,163 4,054 4% 12,423 4,141 -1%

2 Southfields 2 8,964 4,482 14% 9,015 4,508 7%

3 Wandle 2 7,892 3,946 1% 8,365 4,183 0%

Wandsworth 4 3 12,681 4,227 8% 13,888 4,629 10% Town

5 West Hill 3 11,651 3,884 -1% 11,966 3,974 -5%

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Wandsworth Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

13

Appendix B Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all- reviews/greater-london/greater-london/wandsworth

Political Groups

• Wandsworth Conservative Group • Wandsworth Labour Group • Wandsworth Liberal Democrats

Councillors

• Councillor K. Akinola (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor J. Ambache (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor T. Belton (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor R. Birchall (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor H. Byrne (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor K. Caddy (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor L. Calland (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor P. Carpenter (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor J. Cook (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor A. Critchard (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor G. Crivelli (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor P. Dawson (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor H. Denfield (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor A. Dikerdem (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor P. Ellis (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor C. Fraser (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor J. Gasser (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor A. Gibbons (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor C. Gilbert (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor R. Govindia (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor A. Graham (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor M. Grimston (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor M. Hampton (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor G. Henderson (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor S. Hogg (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor G. Humphries (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor J. Locker (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor G. Loveland (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor S. McKinney (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor M. McLeod (Wandsworth Borough Council)

14

• Councillor R. Morgan (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor L. Mowatt (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor R. O’Broin (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor A. Richard-Jones (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor C. Salier (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor G. Senior (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor K. Stock (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor T. Strickland (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor W. Sweet (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor P. Walker (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor T. Walsh (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Councillor E. Wintle (Wandsworth Borough Council)

Members of Parliament

• Fleur Anderson MP (Putney) • Rosena Allin-Khan MP (Tooting) • MP (Battersea)

Local Organisations

• Ackroydon East TMO • Battersea High Street Residents’ Association • Bisley House Residents’ Association • Junction Action Group • Love Battersea • Oak Park Gardens Association Ltd • Parish of St Paul, Wimbledon Park • Patmore Cooperative Ltd • Southfields Business Forum • The Championships Wimbledon • Victoria Drive Conservation Area Residents’ Association • Wimbledon Park Estate

Local Residents

• 328 local residents

Petitions

• Arygle Winterfold Close petition • Gartmoore, Kingscliffe and Southdean Gardens petition • Oaklands Estate petition • Wimbledon Park Estate petition • Woodspring Road petition 15